Summary Of ERA Determinations: Week of 27–2 August 2026
Each week the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) publishes its determinations. Below is a summary of the cases determined this week, with key points for New Zealand business owners and employers.
Port of Napier Limited — Dismissal for undisclosed criminal convictions justified
An employee who failed to declare serious criminal convictions from Australia on his pre-employment form was dismissed by the Port of Napier. He had answered “No” to a question about court convictions in the last 10 years, later claiming he thought the question only applied to New Zealand offences. The Authority found he had knowingly provided inaccurate information and that the employer followed a fair dismissal process, considering his explanations before terminating his employment.
The Authority found the dismissal was justified. Although the employee argued the form was ambiguous and he had sought advice from his parole officer, the form itself contained no limitation to New Zealand convictions. The employer was entitled to conclude the missing information was so serious that it would not have employed him had it known the facts, and dismissal was within the range of options available to a fair and reasonable employer.
Legal considerations for employers: Pre-employment forms asking about criminal convictions must be carefully worded and should specify any geographic limits clearly. When an employee provides false or misleading information on a pre-employment declaration knowing it to be inaccurate, this can justify dismissal. Employers should ensure they give employees a fair opportunity to respond to concerns and genuinely consider their explanations before making final decisions, even in serious cases.
Emerge Aotearoa Limited — COVID vaccination mandate correctly applied to housing worker
A Housing Navigator employed by a health and disability services provider challenged a mandate requiring COVID-19 vaccination. The employee claimed the requirement breached his employment agreement and health and safety obligations. He was based at a mixed-use hub where health practitioners worked and clients attended for health services, and the employer determined this role fell within the government’s vaccination order.
The Authority found the employee was not actually an affected person under the vaccination order. The role did not involve sufficient proximity to health practitioners or members of the public for the required 15 minutes or more. However, the employer’s good faith obligation was not an incorporated term of the collective agreement, so no contractual breach was established. All of the employee’s claims—including health and safety breaches, suspension threats, and wellness breaches—were dismissed.
Legal considerations for employers: When interpreting government mandates like vaccination orders, employers must carefully analyse whether roles actually meet the specific statutory criteria rather than making broad assumptions. Simply because health practitioners work from a location does not automatically mean all roles based there are covered. If you believe good faith obligations form part of employment agreements, you should ensure these are expressly referenced in the agreement itself; relying on statutory duties alone may not create contractual obligations.
Fire and Emergency New Zealand — Firefighter’s personal grievances dismissed for being out of time
A firefighter with over 30 years’ service contracted COVID-19 and was required to go home before his shift commenced. He expected to be paid special leave but was instead required to use annual leave. When he raised concerns, the employer reversed the decision and paid him using leave entitlements. The employee later raised multiple personal grievances about alleged failures to pay him, failures to engage, and breaches of health and safety obligations, but did so more than 90 days after the relevant events.
The Authority found that while the employee had raised some concerns with the employer, he did not formally lodge personal grievances within 90 days of the events occurring. The employee himself acknowledged he was not aware he needed to raise a formal personal grievance and saw no reason to do so given his length of service. By the time he did raise grievances in October 2023, his annual leave had been reinstated and his pay issues were superseded by ACC’s acceptance of a medical claim. The claims were therefore out of time and dismissed.
Legal considerations for employers: Even long-serving employees must raise personal grievances within 90 days, and informal complaints do not satisfy this requirement. Employers should ensure employees understand the formal grievance process. When an employment issue arises, communicate clearly with the employee about what has happened and why. If an employee’s concerns are justified, address them promptly—doing so can prevent formal grievances from being raised and demonstrates good faith engagement.
NPD Limited — Fuel company found to have constructively dismissed driver and failed procedural fairness
A fuel tanker driver employed by a petrol station operator worked long hours with significant scheduling issues that he repeatedly raised with management over years. After his concerns went unaddressed, he resigned giving three months’ notice in February 2025. In April 2025, during a text message exchange with a coworker that included a threat of violence and a racist comment, he was placed on paid special leave then dismissed for serious misconduct. The Authority found the employer had breached its duty to provide a safe workplace and act in good faith by failing to address his long-standing concerns, making his resignation constructively forced.
The Authority found the dismissal unjustified on procedural grounds. The employer failed to provide the employee with full details of the allegations or the coworker’s statement, did not allow him to have a support person at the disciplinary meeting, and the decision-maker (the CEO) did not hear the case before the dismissal decision was made. Regarding the text exchange itself, while the employee’s comments were unedifying, the coworker had provoked him and appeared not to take the threat seriously. The Authority awarded lost remuneration of $13,608, compensation of $22,500 (reduced by 10% for the employee’s contribution), and a penalty of $4,000 for failing to provide wage and time records.
Legal considerations for employers: Employers must address legitimate workplace concerns raised by employees promptly, particularly health and safety issues that affect working conditions. When conducting disciplinary meetings, ensure the employee receives all relevant information, has a support person if requested, and that the final decision-maker actually hears the case. Good faith requires active engagement with employees’ concerns. Failing to provide wage and time records on request is a serious breach with separate penalties available under the Act.
Kaur Queens Trading Limited — Taxi driver found to be employee not contractor, awarded unpaid wages
A driver engaged under an “independent contractor agreement” to work for a taxi company raised claims that he was actually an employee owed unpaid wages and leave entitlements. The company failed to participate in the Authority’s investigation after initially being directed to do so. The Authority found that despite the agreement’s label, the real nature of the relationship was employment based on control, integration, and economic reality tests.
The Authority ordered the company to pay $2,045 in arrears of wages and $286.04 in holiday pay. In a constructive dismissal claim, the Authority found that the company director had refused to pay the driver when he presented for work, and when the driver raised concerns, the director behaved aggressively and threatened him physically. This amounted to a serious breach of the employer’s duty. The driver was ordered reimbursement of lost remuneration of $12,038 and compensation of $7,500 for humiliation and loss of dignity.
Legal considerations for employers: Labels alone do not determine employment status—the Authority will look at the real nature of the relationship including control, integration, and economic reality. Refusing to pay a worker and behaving aggressively when they seek payment is a serious breach of duty. Even if you genuinely believe someone is an independent contractor, you must still comply with minimum wage and payment requirements. Failing to participate in Authority investigations severely undermines your position.
VLN v Kim Dotcom — Employment case removed to Employment Court before investigation
A worker engaged by a contractor to provide services at properties associated with Kim Dotcom and Elizabeth Dotcom applied to the Authority claiming employee status. The contractor and both respondents failed to engage with the Authority. The applicant then sought removal of the matter to the Employment Court without investigation, arguing public interest and urgency due to Kim Dotcom’s potential extradition.
The Authority granted an interim non-publication order protecting the applicant’s identity and removed the entire matter to the Employment Court. The Authority found that if the applicant is found to be an employee, minimum employment standards issues are potentially at stake. The prospect of the primary respondent being extradited before the case could be resolved created sufficient urgency and public interest to warrant removal without the Authority investigating first.
Legal considerations for employers: Engagement with the Authority process is important—failure to participate severely weakens your position. Non-publication orders are available where there are genuine safety or other concerns about identifying parties. Matters involving minimum employment standards and questions of employment status can be removed to the Employment Court if public interest and urgency factors exist.
Paul Adams v EverEdge Global Limited — CEO constructively dismissed when salary ceased without explanation
A CEO relocated to Amsterdam to lead European expansion of a technology company following a share sale transaction. After two months, the company ceased paying his salary across three pay cycles without explanation or communication about the reason. He repeatedly requested payment but received no substantive response. After submitting a formal demand, he resigned and claimed constructive dismissal.
The Authority found the company fundamentally breached its duty to pay wages and its good faith obligation by ceasing all salary payments without investigation or explanation. The breach was sufficiently serious to make it reasonably foreseeable the employee would resign. The Authority also found evidence that stopping pay was a deliberate course of conduct designed to force the CEO’s resignation as part of wider settlement negotiations. The CEO was awarded arrears of $40,625 plus KiwiSaver, lost remuneration of $182,812.55 plus KiwiSaver contribution, compensation of $30,000, and a penalty of $7,500 for breach of good faith.
Legal considerations for employers: Ceasing salary payments without notice or explanation is a fundamental breach of the employment relationship. Employers must communicate with employees about their concerns and provide opportunity to respond. If you are unhappy with an employee’s performance or relocation, address this through proper management and disciplinary processes—never simply stop paying them. Deliberately withholding pay to coerce resignation creates exposure to constructive dismissal claims and penalties for breach of good faith duties.
